To the topic at hand, I agree that it is amusing to see someone throw out the crybaby label when they're not in an exclusive club...if having Obama on your TV show -- broadcast to how many people exactly, so how is it relevant? -- can be construed as a requirement for exclusive club membership.

With luck, Obama can remember Wallace's words and they can talk about it when Obama is on Fox. I suspect Wallace would look foolish if that happened.

There's a whole gaggle of crybabies in this one: the Obama Adminstration, Chris Wallace, MSM in general. GAG!

The late George Carlin talked about the "pussification of America". And great blogger Kim du Toit wrote about the "Pussification of the Western Male". This story shows that Carlin and du Toit are right.

You'd have thought that the 5 shows that Obama did go on would've been more competitive about trying to get their interview to stand out and make the news. I guess the only one that did (I watched none of them) was ABC getting what sounded like a less than honest answer out of Obama on the ACORN scandal.

BTW, the linked-to article mentions that the Fox broadcast network (as opposed to Fox News Channel) didn't carry some Obama events. But what I found surprising was that on the morning of the 9/11 aniversary, Fox News Channel aired Obama's stuff live but MSNBC did not! Apparently MSNBC thought Obama was more boring than their own programming on their NEWS channel. FOX NEws still airs Obama no matter how boring he is, but they just give people the choice to watch other programming on the Fox enterntainment channel if they want. What's wrong with that?

Kurtz left out that Wallace later commented during the show that Obama's large number of one-on-one interviews to this point (compared to W. and Clinton) had left him "overexposed." So, Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

But considering that the Fox broadcast network passed on showing Obama's fourth prime-time news conference, and his address to Congress on health care, I'm not surprised Obama did not put himself out for them. Maybe Wallace could have interviewed some reality show participants to fill the vacuum?

Obama did Fox News a big favor. Obama snubbing Fox plays right into their whole current advertising compain that all the other news channels are in the tank for Obama and you should tune into Fox as the only alternative. So, it was a strategic error on Obama's part.

Wallace's quote (see the youtube) is specifically referring to the way this administration goes crazy emailing and phoning news programs to whine about what guests they have on and how they're covering things, moreso than any oprevious administration. Wallace says the other networks let themselves get pushed around by Obama's people.

"With luck, Obama can remember Wallace's words and they can talk about it when Obama is on Fox. I suspect Wallace would look foolish if that happened."

I don't see that. The case is so clear and easily made by Wallace. I'm sure he could make endless comparisons with past administrations possessing more balls. Obama's defense would likely prove the point.

With luck, Obama can remember Wallace's words and they can talk about it when Obama is on Fox. I suspect Wallace would look foolish if that happened.

MM, do you think there's a even a remote chance that Obama will appear on Fox News Sunday or any other Fox News program, when he has been literally everywhere else so far and refuses to even consider Fox News?

I suspect that Wallace, given the opportunity to interview the President, would be gracious and apologize for his earlier remarks. I am completely sure he will never have the need or opportunity to do so.

"MM, do you think there's a even a remote chance that Obama will appear on Fox News Sunday or any other Fox News program, when he has been literally everywhere else so far and refuses to even consider Fox News?"

Thanks for saying that Joan. This irritates the heck outta me. Why avoid Fox News even if you disagree with them. It's when you walk into the proverbial lion's den where your really get measured. C'mon Mr. President. Show some stones.

*** I realized I just tossed some red meat out there for the Althouse faithful. LOL!

I confess to not watching TV -- has he not been on Fox already? I vaguely recall a brouhaha some months ago wherein Fox did not broadcast an Obama "press conference". But I thought he had been on a show already.

Triangle Man, in 1986 2400-baud modems were around, I vaguely recall. I recall getting a 9600-baud one at work in '88!

You come here to take pot shots at other commenters but have nothing to say about the actual subject of whether or not the President of the United States should play favorites and rewards only those news organizations that tend to report on him the way he likes?

So sad, no Royal Coach was sent for Chris "Cinderella" Wallace to take him to the Ball and meet the Prince. What's a skullery maid to do these days to hook a prince, change networks? The best Wallace could do back was to tweak the Obama Nation media operation with a slur to their collective manhood (And it is well known that Wallace is a famous Southern White Racist's name, just ask MoDo). Wallace is very lucky that his Visa has not been revoked, his Visa card I mean, just to show that the Pussey Power Practitioners of the new Junta understand how a true coup d'etat must quickly plaster the smiling face of Great Leader everwhere. Wallace must learn that Great Leaders answer no questions...The reply of a Great leader to a real question is always, "That Question Does Not Arise, you rude racist".

But considering that the Fox broadcast network passed on showing Obama's fourth prime-time news conference, and his address to Congress on health care, I'm not surprised Obama did not put himself out for them.

Doesn’t that kind of reinforce what Wallace was saying? They are petty and personal.

@ MM: I confess to not watching TV -- has he not been on Fox already? I vaguely recall a brouhaha some months ago wherein Fox did not broadcast an Obama "press conference". But I thought he had been on a show already.

You are correct. Obama appeared on Bill O'Riley's show a couple of months ago. That does not excuse his refusing to do Fox News' Sunday talk show when he chose to do all the others. Fox News Channel (FNC) has far and away the largest domestic audience of all the cable news channels. (During some hours, FNC's audience exceeds the combined audience of CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC.)

If the President was going to do the cable news networks' Sunday shows, it doesn't make sense that he would choose to forgo the largest of those networks -- unless he was trying to snub the network. Had he chosen to just appear on the three broadcast networks, FNC's grounds for complaint wouldn't be nearly as clear.

As you grow up, you will find that there are actually deeper meanings to things we call issues. Throwing your poo at everyone will seem like less of an adult argument by the time you reach adolescence.

When I covered Ronald Reagan for NBC in the 80’s, you know, some days you’d do a positive piece about them and some days you’d do a tough piece. And you’d come in the next day and they always treated you professionally. And I think it came from the top down, from the old man. Reagan, who felt “You know I’m going to get a good review today and a bad one tomorrow and it’s nothing personal”.

These guys, everything is personal. They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington. They constantly are on the phone or emailing me “Well you had this guest” or “did this thing”. I mean they are working this all the time. I think it works on the others. It doesn’t work on me.

Actually, that is so true that no one - including journalists on the left, will argue with it.

Just accept that Rahm and Barack are doing their level best to control every bit of information that they can. EVEN when they can't control it completely, they try to intimidate so that they can slow the spiral.

Really - did anyone expect anything else form this admin when they voted for them?

What's odd too, is that as recently as a day ago, the standard complaint on the lips of conservatives everywhere was that Obama was TOO overesposed!

Dude, the two complaints (that he did too many shows and that he snubbed the one show where he was likely to be asked a hard question) are not mutually exclusive. I believe Obama was the 1st sitting President to do a late night comedy show when appeared on the Tonight Show. Tonight he appears on Letterman's show. If there were a conservative late night talk show, it wouldn't be wrong to point out that Obama was only appearing in safe venues while at the same time arguing that he shouldn't be appearing on any of the shows.

The FOX News exile to Siberia and the "Rush Limbaugh is a rude fat idiot" meme are directed to whip up enthusiasm for President Obama from his own Liberal/Progressive wing that has also been souring on him saying one thing and then doing another. Great Leader needs to send out more crying women fast. That will teach his media critics a lesson they will not soon forget.

As has already been stated, Wallace was not saying anything about Obama not appearing on FOX. It was about his pressies' constant whine about coverage that was not favorable and their attempts to whine them into being Obamabots like other outlets.

But the lefty commenters here are legendary for missing the point and spewing non sequitur.

There are several versions of the Wallace video on You Tube. One in particular is posted by a liberal, where the comments using the F-bomb are over the top.

Why do liberals hate so much? Reading the comments there - and every day on Huffington Post - it is impossible to not get the impression that the liberals in this country that comment are only happy when they can spew F-bomb and "wish they were dead" hatred for conservatives and/or anyone who disagrees with them or upsets their view of reality.

It's also called Propaganda. That's the real scandal - how the news media is using propaganda to create news stories that aren't really news at all. And gullible law professors eat it up.

2 million protestors anyone???

When historians study this time in 50 years, they will wonder how Americans were so gullible. We impeached a President over a blowjob, because of such propaganda, we went to war in Iraq, because of such propaganda. Where will the propaganda take us next?

I expect better of you than this, man. You have had some awfully well reasoned stuff on here before. Don't avoid the issue being raised - discuss how this is the worst administration in openness and attempts to punish and reward the independent news media in the last 30 years.

Seriously, dude, don't attack the messenger because you don't like the message.

Downtown Jeremy Omega Loaf, "Fox News!" and "Rush Limbaugh!" and "You, a Manchurian law professor!" We understand, and we understand the desperate insults from Michael Lucky and friends. Now try making an actual argument.

Ass Jam Lynch, making fun of du Toit's name to prove your point? Really? You see that as compelling?

Oh, a bit off topic but I was listening to Air America on the way to work and the hosts were mocking a caller who said we need to prioritize the unemployment issue before health care reform. They also in a mocking tone implied the private sector can't be counted on to provide people jobs. One thing I noticed about Air America types is they always go after the big corporations, but never say "but we support small business". Never. They are just pure socialists.

And I never took Fox News seriously, because it was always obvious that they were in the back pocket of the Republican Party. But it is very disturbing how millions of Americans, including our law professor blogger, don't realize that they are getting their news from a network with an AGENDA.

I'm sorry if it's insulting, I don't want to be, but I think Ann would vote for the first black president again. That sensibility is near impossible to shake, from what I've seen in most people.

Also, I find it sad that we consider a half white man to be black. It's just illogical and creepy. He's primarily a leftist. The black/white thing tells you nothing about him, and those who consider it important have some soul searching to do.

The irony of the lefty comments here is amazing. I know I'm not the only one seeing it. Just look at what you guys wrote. Imagine from the opposite side how it looks when you say stuff like: "don't realize that they are getting their news from a network with an AGENDA."

DTL - in fact the Reagan tax cuts did stimulate private enterprise. The deficit increased due to government spending outpacing increased revenues, that's a fact. Now Bush's tax rebates did nothing to stimulate the investment side.

A case study in how a very smart law professor can become absolutely brainwashed by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

I love how certain liberals think nobody can have a similar opinion without being “brainwashed”. And they never realize that the whole thing is a which comes first situation anyway. Rather than people being brainwashed into thinking along the same lines as Fox and Rush, Fox and Rush do so well because these opinions were hugely underrepresented.

DTL - thanks to the stimulus the recession is over? Any evidence for that? The bleeding in the corporate bottom lines have stopped, but unemployment continues on. I thought you lefties said GDP doesn't matter, only employment does. 9.7% unemployment, and increasing!

You are a Cadillac of self-parody. But I'll play: are you insinuating that CNN MSNBC ABC NBC CBS don't have agendas? Fake documents, cropped pictures to stoke racial hatred, falsified quotes in an interview followed by fraudulent editing of the interview. What do these sentence fragments have in common? They describe the tactics of your agenda-free networks.

Also, please submit your evidence that Althouse only gets her news / info from FNC. Note: I mean evidence, not conjecture followed by a reference to some news item reported by FNC.

Alex, I dropped the ball. All 3 synapses firing at once seems to detract from my hand-eye.

DTL - and you're mistaken if you think Althouse has some right-wing agenda. In fact she's one of those squishy middle/moderate type folks who don't know what they really believe in, except they want pragmatic solutions. So you're really barking up the wrong tree. People like you always see everything in black/white terms. If someone is not in your camp, then by exclusion they must be a rightie. Wrong!

Actually Alex - since you are economic ignoramus (and yes you ARE an economic ignoramus), I will educate you.

Unemployment is a LAGGING indicator. It will be one of the last parts of the economy that turns around.

The economy is out of a recession right now. And yes, programs that you ridicule like "Cash for Clunkers" will probably contribute a nice chunk of growth to GDP this quarter. The economy is probably growing at least 2%. You will see come October when they release the Q3 GDP numbers.

Unemployment will continue to zigzag sideways and slightly higher until sometime in 2010. And then it will start going down.

Weekly unemployment claims hit a peak in the high 600,000's in the Spring. It is now at around 550,000. When it gets to 400,000, unemployment will stabilize.

I read Calculated Risk - that's the best financial blog out there. And decidedly NON-partisan.

Also it's the height of economic ignorance to suggest Obama's "stimulus" package has anything to do with corporations starting to show profits again. Correlation != causation, but I didn't expect you to understand basic reasoning.

I do read dailykos once in a while, and when I do, I know I'm getting the Democratic Party Agenda. But they really don't pretend to be otherwise. But the blogs are really prefer are Balloon Juice, Krugman, Brad DeLong, Calculated Risk. Althouse is turning into a parrot of Fox News. Which is just not very interesting. And when we keep hearing propaganda repeated, like 2 million protestors!, global warming is a myth!, Obama caused the recession! well that is just sad, because it shows that Ann really believes that stuff. And she should be intelligent enough to know when she is being fed propaganda.

Did you think the economy will just keep going down forever? Do you really think the President can turn it around? If so, then let's just make him emperor of the world and solve poverty forever, yahooooo! Unicorns are cool.

"And yes, programs that you ridicule like "Cash for Clunkers" will probably contribute a nice chunk of growth to GDP this quarter".

Recovery a clunker:"The now-ended Cash for Clunkers program helped lift consumer spending 0.2% last month and is expected to deliver a bigger boost in August. Without that program, consumer spending was flat.Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/08/29/2009-08-29_recovery_a_clunker_.html#ixzz0RlCYW2Qm"

Calculated Risk is a good financial site, a bit more hopeful than most, though. In any event, the unemployment trend and recovery has been far worse than Obama and Geitner ever predicted. The stimulus is recognized as a total waste of money, and the cap and trade tax will be a financial disaster.

Some of us think that that question is not so relevant as asking 1.) if it matters if the earth gets warmer (better warm than cold, is a possibility here) or 2.) if we can actually do anything to fix it.

Actually Alex - When the left (of which I am not a member) kept pointing to rising unemployment during the Bush recovery, I was smart enough to know that I was listening to propaganda.

I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now.

You, on the other hand, are being decidedly partisan. Saying that unemployment was a lagging indicator during the Bush recovery, but refusing to acknowledge that it is a lagging indicator now.

I used to believe the propaganda now. When I read the Wall Street Journal in the 1990's, I believed that Obama was involved with drug rings in Mesa, Arkansas. I believed that Bill & Hillary had Vince Foster murdered. That IS what the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page said. And I was gullible enough to believe it, because well - it was the Wall Street Journal - they wouldn't lie.

But of course they lied. And at least I was smart enough to figure it out. And they have never apologized for publishing that crap.

Oh, and if other factors than man-made ones might be having a little MORE of an effect on the temperature. And if we have enough long term, detailed temp data to be making assumptions (not sure that checking ice and such will give you temp to quite the degree as what we are measuring now, and for the last 100 years or so).

I had thought this post would have been a perfect opportunity to show off the independence, fair-mindedness and sheer maverickiness of the Althousisitical right.

"Lo!" you could have said "Here, the Maiden of Madison pokes gentle fun at a figure on the right, pointing out how he is being a crybaby about Obama being a crybaby! See, she dishes it out to both sides thereby indemnifying herself against charges of partisan hackery always and everywhere and in perpetuity!!!"

And yet you failed to take advantage of it. . . presumably because The Worst President Ever had been, in your minds, less than adequately lambasted.

How can the (effusive adjective pending) Althouse maintain the fiction of fair-minded unbiasedness, when the Althousimites don't step up to the plate?

Well Shanna - I do think that global warming will make humans extinct if we don't do anything about it.

I think an ice age is worse for our survival than warming, if it’s a few degrees one way or the other. (The Universe said our planet is going to go away when the Sun expands in 5 billion years, I think, so I guess that might count as “warming” but we won’t be able to do jack about it)

The little ice age of just a few hundred years ago saw crops failing and plague. We can grow plenty of crops when it’s warm. But that’s certainly an argument that can be made, without just blindly saying “STOP global warming”. I think we should concentrate on surviving as a species in any climate.

You want it both ways. You want to appear "fair and balanced" towards Obama, and so refrain from calling him the worst president ever, reserving that title for Carter.

You then go on to say that you actually prefer Cater to Obama, because Obama is much more "dangerous".

But of course, you're not being hysterical, because you are on record as deliberately NOT saying that Obama is the worst president ever. So you're appraisal of his "dangerousness" must therefore be sane.

As for you're question: I have no opinion on how dangerous Alinsky was. How many peopel did he kill or cause to be killed?

At the risk of further boring Defenseman Emeritus, I really must register once again my disappointment with this thread.

I had thought for sure that here, at long last was proof positive of the legendary Althousiannish even-handedness!

Sure the footage was grainy, and that kind of looks like a zipper, but there it was loping through the clearing and casting a careless glance over its shoulder: A mild shot at a conservative pundit, an actually accusation of whinyness hurled defiantly at the right, from the equinanimous Althouse. Not much, but it would count as proof against the claim that Althouse is a partisan hack.

But the troops failed to rally, and the breach remained unfilled.

Ann chopped, and no chips flew. She cut, and you refused to bleed. She set 'em up, and you di not knock 'em down.

"CHURCHVILLE, VA—Three of the world’s major climate monitors have announced that the earth’s temperatures dropped over the last 12 months—by enough to virtually offset the entire “unprecedented warming” of the last century. This comes after nine years of no warming, and a net warming since 1940 of just 0.2 degrees.

Equally important, a drop in temperatures had been predicted by the sunspot index that foretells the earth’s temperature changes with a log time of nearly a decade. Our temperatures have a 79 percent correlation with the sunspot index. The sunspot index turned downward in 2000."

i hate to break this to you phos--but you are not nearly as witty, cute and incisive as you think you are--the fact that you continue to post on this blog at all suggests you somehow crave attention that is not at all deserved--if being the object of ridicule suits you, by all means, sir--carry on

Not one of them is able to counter the assertion that the Obama White House is the least open, most news controlling administration rewarding and punishing independent news organizations on a daily basis - a level literally never seen before.

This is cynical, disgusting behavior from the highest levels of our government, showing daily contempt for the American people and particularly any American who doesn't toe their line.

Thankfully, history shows that this attempt to put every available finger in the holes in the dike will eventually fail.

So really, the question has to be:Why is this administration so afraid of having the real, not-afraid-of-Rahm-Emmanuel news lights turned on?

The attempt to keep people inside the administration from leaking is not the same as actively, daily trying to intimidate independent news organizations into writing a story your way by threats and rewards.

No one is accusing the Bush administration of being anything close to this administration in this.

Because they can't. Which is why every liberal who commented here today wouldn't address this issue - they can't.

Well, that and the lack of backbone in fear of standing up to the administration. Years of yelling about rights taken away by Bush have yielded into a simple "Here, take 'em Master's!" to the Obama admin.

I'm conservative and I would still be furious if Bush or any other conservative administration tried to stifle and intimidate the nes media at a daily - that means DAILY - level.

"Not one of them is able to counter the assertion that the Obama White House is the least open, most news controlling administration rewarding and punishing independent news organizations on a daily basis - a level literally never seen before."

Has that assertion been made on this thread? I believe this is the first time it has come up.

Once again: the Scintillating Ms. Althouse suggested that Chris Wallace was being the crybaby that he was accusing the Obamans of being. The merest hint, mind you. . . just the slightest bit of bite in her post.

No assertion was made. The only declarative sentence in the post was the quote from Wallace.

I will gladly counter the assertion. . . as soon as it is made.

And hopefully backed up with evidence. All we have now is the whiny statement of a conservative who was snubbed, and the collective wisdom of a bunch of blog posters who have already decided that Obama is. . .

Oh never mind.

I give in. NO OTHER administration has ever acted this way with the press, just as NO OTHER president before Clinton had ever criticized a sitting president.

Did you read the transcript of the YouTube piece (I posted above at 9:21 - do you even read the stuff being discussed, or - oh that's right - you're just looking for a place to shit)? Did you watch the video?

That's what this thread is about. The things Chris Wallace said. Hint: always read the title of the post (got to do everything for the immature mind - sigh).

What Wallace said about the calls he gets from the admin - pay close attention now, phosphorius - should send chills down the spine of every American, even if Wallace was the only reporter they do this to. One is too many, a camel nose under the tent opening (let me know if you haven't heard that one on Sesame Street yet).

You know they do it to all of the media - seeking to intimidate and threat and reward to get the independent non-government sponsored media to report stories their way.

Did you see the article about the NEW and the Stalinist/Maoist tactics being used by this admninistration to direct the work of artists into propaganda? Of course you did.

When you grow up, there will be lessons on the power of government and the rights of people and you'll have decisions to make then about whether or not you want to trade in the truth for what the government always wants you to think and know. You will study the Soviet bloc and how horrible the lives of their people were. and you will look at your own country and go - hmmmm? exactly when did we begin giving away access to free non-government approved information?

I'm thinking that at your intellectual growth level - judging by your focus and ability level to engage in reason - that all this will come to you in about 10 years.

Why not? You just dismiss hwat they're saying because you don't like them?

I'm done with you and your ignorant head -in-the-sand if I don't like what reality is attitude. You're the mindful equivalent of a piece of shit, and I'll spend my efforts with those who want to deal in reality rather than their liberal comfort zone.

Which is sad. Because I actually am one of the conservatives who believe that Obama often wants to do the right thing, even if I don't agree with his methods.

"Which is sad. Because I actually am one of the conservatives who believe that Obama often wants to do the right thing, even if I don't agree with his methods."

You win the thread, Chase. Your fair-mindedness and maverickyness are beyond reproach.

The Tapper remark:

"When ABC's Jake Tapper sought comment for a story on whether the president was risking overexposure, he reported: "The White House said they would be happy to deny all of ABC News's interview requests for the president for the rest of the year. They were joking, I think."

And to your mind this is proof that "the Obama White House is the least open, most news controlling administration rewarding and punishing independent news organizations on a daily basis - a level literally never seen before."

What exactly did Jake Tapper say? Because if the only evidence for any lack of openness on the part of the Obama administration comes from a skeez like Wallace, then I say the Bush administration was still less open. I mean, after all, they chose to be at odds with the entire media whereas Obama is at odds with just one twerp. And perhaps his bogus outfit.

But I suppose that any action on behalf of the administration short of forcing the entire media establishment at large to become less "liberal" is a massive FAIL in your coloring books. Cause that's what the decider does. He decides what is reality. No? And whoever doesn't go along is a patriot? (If the president is not a Republican). Or are the dissenters socialist/leftist agitators? (If the president IS a Republican). Oh, I see. Very realistic tautology you rely on there.

I think the administration is just smarter at controlling their message and at giving answers that more people rationally accept, certain celebrity hounds notwithstanding. So let the faux-trage roll. This sort of implosion and anger over a loss of entitlement was seen before... (cue Hillary, McCain...) Just not on such a scale. Otherwise, it wouldn't look so scary. The spontaneous combustion of one politician's ego is weird enough. But to watch it happen among a few million disgruntled partisans, who feel they're going for broke, well, that's just sad. And it's starting to become repulsive.

You might think the libs' heartstrings are pulled so easily as to feel your pain. But providing empathy to you guys (you bullies?) before you learn to modify your bad behavior would keep you from learning your lesson. So shut up and let the democracy happen. You had your chance.

My heart goes out to Downtownlad, He is still imagining that he feels warmth when winter has started 2 months early this week. We all need to start a fund to buy DTL a thermometer and a winter coat. But he knows in his growing colder heart that only the UN can save the Globe by a wise Government that will quickly stop all the evidence of human life, including living and breathing and eating and producing men and women whose activities are a crisis of continuing offense to the Goddess Gaia. If only DTL could come out of his trance and realise that a "Carbon Footprint" is not a crime or even a problem, but it is a wonderful sign of life and health for the people of the world. Gaia is just jealous because she is a goddess carved from wood, and she fears men will listen to Hebrew Prophets and break her and throw her into the fire.

MUL...Carbon Footprints have no basis in fact. They are theoretical constructs based on the normal carbon based lifeforms (like you) living on the earth for hundreds of millions of years. The animals respire and fires and other sources have released the odorless and colorless gas called CO2 into the air since time began on the earth. They "pollute" nothing. The theoretical GREENHOUSE GASSES are about 85% water vapor. The CO2 component is less than meaningless even if the Rube Goldberg Theory of GreenHouse gasses is even partly a real factor in warming and cooling of the atmosphere. All climate science concurs that historically increases in CO2 levels have always FOLLOWED rising temperatures, and have never caused them. So be free and live a large Carbon Footprint all you Puritanically abused humans. Rise up and throw off the chains of false guilt.

Amazing. I have a degree in molecular biology and some guy who shows off his knowledge of the fact that respiration and fire produce CO2, and have for millions of years, thinks that this factoid is sufficient for refuting the observation that CO2 retains heat and that humans are increasing the quantity and concentration of it in the atmosphere. Simply amazing.

Oh, and nice on the "colorless and odorless" not equal to pollution thing. Carbon monoxide much? I'll tell that to the next ER admission for smoke inhalation. I'll tell him he's fine. It's all in his head. traditionalguy said so.

"a "Carbon Footprint" is not a crime or even a problem, but it is a wonderful sign of life and health for the people of the world."

Yeah. Assuming you're a plant

And nice for people who eat plants, animals that eat plants and the people who eat those animals.

Also nice when more plants can be grown in the upper latitudes and expand the food growing abilities of the human race.

Let's assume that the globe is warming (although it really isn't recently) because we are still coming out of the last ice age. How is being warmer a bad thing? Plants like it and grow better, animals don't have such a hard time surviving. AND people don't have to use polluting fuels to keep warm.

And don't give me that sob story about the polar bears. Like I said. They are just brown bears that got trapped in the last ice age and were able to adapt to a terrible environment. If they were smarter or luckier they would be in Yellowstone Park.

Dustbunny queen wrote:"George Stephanopoulos better be watching his back. He asked Obama hard questions. The big meanie. Didn't he get the manual on how Obama is God? They'll make him sorry." Clearly Stephanopoulous is a racist. To even question the assertion put forth by Obama that the tax proposed in his health care bill is not a tax clearly suggests that Stephanopoulos has some latent issues with Obama's race. Otherwise, why would he dare question him?

Dustbunny also wrote:"And don't give me that sob story about the polar bears. Like I said. They are just brown bears that got trapped in the last ice age and were able to adapt to a terrible environment. If they were smarter or luckier they would be in Yellowstone Park."So if they could adapt to colder climates that assumes they could also adapt to warmer climates too. Hell, we could think of it as testing evolutionary theory.Do animals evolve to keep up with changes in their environments?

Dustbunny also wrote:"And don't give me that sob story about the polar bears. Like I said. They are just brown bears that got trapped in the last ice age and were able to adapt to a terrible environment. If they were smarter or luckier they would be in Yellowstone Park."So if they could adapt to colder climates that assumes they could also adapt to warmer climates too. Hell, we could think of it as testing evolutionary theory.Do animals evolve to keep up with changes in their environments?

So if they could adapt to colder climates that assumes they could also adapt to warmer climates too. Hell, we could think of it as testing evolutionary theory.Do animals evolve to keep up with changes in their environments?

BINGO. The world changes all the time. It just does it very very slowly most of the time, barring a planet busting asteroid or massive volcanic ash spewing event we don't really notice it.

Plants and animals can adapt. If people can't adapt with all of our resources ....well, then we deserve to die.

Let's assume that the globe is warming (although it really isn't recently) because we are still coming out of the last ice age. How is being warmer a bad thing? Plants like it and grow better, animals don't have such a hard time surviving. AND people don't have to use polluting fuels to keep warm.

And don't give me that sob story about the polar bears. Like I said. They are just brown bears that got trapped in the last ice age and were able to adapt to a terrible environment. If they were smarter or luckier they would be in Yellowstone Park.

The problem with messing around with complex systems - just because it suits someone to do so - that humans are far from understanding completely, and saying the consequences be damned, is that we will still have to live with those consequences.

As it stands now, we have a good understanding of local, regional and global patterns. Harvests vary, but not wildly. Coastlines don't shift terribly much. The boundaries between deserts and rain forests, between arid regions and wetlands, temperate, polar and tropical areas can maintain an appreciable degree of stability. Why fuck with that?

Essentially your error is two-fold. One, you are confusing the impact of a changing global average of something with the effects that may be exacerbated at regional and local levels. And second, you are assuming that our ability to adapt to unknown and unpredictable changes (but changes nonetheless) is preferable to adapting to something more familiar: The need to invent and develop a new energy source.

People have been developing new energy sources for quite some time. But civilization as we know it began at the time of the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago and grew under the relatively stable climatological conditions that followed.

Before that, human existence was a bit more precarious to say the least.

Why on earth would we want to say to hell with the consequences of possibly changing the conditions that allowed civilization to flourish for the sake of not adapting to the need for a new energy source?

You see, in some ways I am pretty conservative. If I am healthy, I don't like to change the functioning of my body in unpredictable ways. I like to retain what's stable and what works. Likewise, in a series of ecosystems in which several organisms rely on each other for their sustenance, why does it make sense to fuck with that? Where's the need? Do other species that deplete their resources stay around forever?

They don't.

We have the technology and the knowledge to encourage less unstable ways of modifying the environment to suit our needs. To not care about completely destroying the existing natural order, and waiting the millions of years that it might take to rebuild and recalibrate in some new way (or not, since you're taking the existence of life on earth as a given that is in no way guaranteed), seems much more reckless than simply taking the time to change our technology so as to make it less disruptive of our natural existence.

Society, and hence, our social "needs" came after nature allowed for the conditions that brought about human existence and human civilization as we know it. Don't you see that? I simply don't understand why anyone would think we can turn a straightforward progression upside down and pretend that nature will adapt to what human society does to it more easily than human society will adapt to the natural order that humans rely on in order to exist in the first place.

I simply don't understand why anyone would think we can turn a straightforward progression upside down and pretend that nature will adapt to what human society does to it more easily than human society will adapt to the natural order that humans rely on in order to exist in the first place.

Because I simply do not believe there is evidence that man made global warming is a proven fact. You can argue about it all you want from your ideological position, but the facts are just not there.

All you have right now is a hypothesis. And because they promoters of man made global warming have a venial, self serving interest in proving that hypothesis, they are not conducting themselves in the manner of true scientists.

True scientists don't start with a conclusion and try to force the data to prove their hypothesis. They start with an assumption and let the data prove OR disprove the hypothesis. What we have now are a bunch of shills and self serving gas bags like Gore who are making themselves filthly rich from carbon credit trading schemes. Rich at the expense of the economy and the common man for a phony baloney unproven idea.

PLUS even if it were proven that the world is getting warmer.....so fucking what? It may be a good thing.

The earth is too complex for the minor impact of man to make a difference in the long run. The earth has survived snowball earth, hot steamy dinosaur earth, molten earth.

You seem to have an inflated sense of the importance of our little species. Algae and fungus have a larger impact on nature than we we. Nature will adapt and we have to adapt with it or die. Life goes on and if we aren't part of it then too bad.

How is being warmer a bad thing? Plants like it and grow better, animals don't have such a hard time surviving. AND people don't have to use polluting fuels to keep warm.

DBQ, I'm guessing you're someone who hasn't traveled much beyond your own environment which accounts for your spectacularly caviler perspective. The inhabitants of the Republic of Kiribati, would have likely suggest you come and visit their rapidly disappearing nation as the waters of the Pacific Ocean continue to rise. Too bad they don't have mountains to plant their crops at a higher altitude.

Because I simply do not believe there is evidence that man made global warming is a proven fact.

Good to know you can substitute beliefs for arguments. Not.

You can argue about it all you want from your ideological position, but the facts are just not there.

Hmmm... and I seem to think that the advent of agriculture - a result of current climate conditions - as a precursor to civilization is pretty much borne out by the evidence. Not much room for ideology in that.

All you have right now is a hypothesis.

You are scientifically illiterate to state as much. This is much more than a "hypothesis." Didn't they teach the meaning of the word "hypothesis" when you went to grade school? They did when I did.

And because they promoters of man made global warming have a venial, self serving interest in proving that hypothesis, they are not conducting themselves in the manner of true scientists.

"they promoter"?

"venial"?

Who the hell are you to pronounce on how scientists should "conduct" themselves? This is not a matter of judging behavior. It's a matter of judging facts, evidence, and theory. Leave the theater to someone else. Or at least project your obsession with theater on someone else.

True scientists don't start with a conclusion and try to force the data to prove their hypothesis. They start with an assumption and let the data prove OR disprove the hypothesis.

Wow Bunny. For once you seem to indicate some sort of passing familiarity with science.

What we have now are a bunch of shills and self serving gas bags like Gore who are making themselves filthly rich from carbon credit trading schemes.

And then instead of elaborating on what you said in a way that makes it a useful statement, you go ahead and blow it with some kind of all-encompassing, grand, nutty conspiracy theory.

Rich at the expense of the economy and the common man for a phony baloney unproven idea.

If only I had the confidence to believe something was true just by saying it - the way you do here. Oh wait! That's what you accuse science of doing. Nevermind. Project away.

PLUS even if it were proven that the world is getting warmer.....so fucking what? It may be a good thing.

Love it. Everything others say is all absolute bullshit, but when you entertain the possibility of it's accuracy, we should have faith that your ambiguity about whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, and just assume to err on the side of the former. What an utterly self-serving conclusion. And you said "the scientists" are coming up with self-serving, pre-determined conclusions. But you don't find that the least bit hypocritical now, don't you? I didn't think so.

I can see there is an amazing amount of projection going on here.

The earth is too complex for the minor impact of man to make a difference in the long run.

More foregone, and idiotic, conclusions.

Bunny commits the remarkable feat of blaming others for believing a self-serving foregone conclusion to fit their hypothesis... and then she goes ahead, and does the exact same fucking thing!

I can see someone is relying a bit too much on animated Disney films for her understanding of geochemistry.

For the last time, we are not talking about the survival of "the earth" - the third rock from the sun. We are talking about the survival of the species and ecosystems of the earth that our evolution depended upon.

You seem to have an inflated sense of the importance of our little species.

That's because if my species didn't exist, I wouldn't exist. If my species stop existing, my future generations stop existing. It's in an organism's interest to ensure the survival of its progeny, and humans extend that to posterity. But I can see that you don't have much regard for human civilization. Should that surprise me?

To declare a disinterest in the survival of one's species is a bit suicidal from a Darwinian perspective. If you don't care for the survival and well-being of your offspring, and their offspring, I don't understand why you would care about your own life. They represent the continuation of a part of you, after all.

Algae and fungus have a larger impact on nature than we we.

What's your point, we we?

Nature will adapt and we have to adapt with it or die.

Again, when you say "nature will adapt" - (which seems to betray an illiteracy of biology; it's species that adapt or don't, not "nature") - then I have to wonder what kind of a strange person would like for the impact of human existence to be to kill off life on the planet. What a bizarre and empty vision for the future of a planet that humans have made such a positive impact upon. Unless, once again, you think that human civilization is not a profound thing.

The opposite of civilization is barbarism. Did you know that?

"Life goes on and if we aren't part of it then too bad."

Strange thing to say for someone who confuses the distinction between the continuation of a single species with the continuation of life generally (i.e. "nature").

But again, don't count on the majority of the people in a democracy sharing your apathetic vision of a slow apocalypse and utterly drab aftermath. Most people think well enough of their accomplishments and the accomplishments of their fellow humans to not blithely consign the species to oblivion and the planet to such a boring state.

montana urban legend wrote:"The problem with messing around with complex systems - just because it suits someone to do so - that humans are far from understanding completely, and saying the consequences be damned, is that we will still have to live with those consequences." Funny you should say that because that in fact is that exact argument I would use against environmentalists who act as if they have a complete understanding of complex systems and then try to meddle with some harebrained notions that will not noticably impact global warming, but will noticably impact peoples lives and how they live them. And these same environmentalists are completely oblivious to the cost their hair brained notions will have on peoples lives in both dollars and the actual hardship it will cause.We will still have to live with the consequences of what the environmentalists are forcing us into and they are oblivious to the idea that there are even consequences. Climate is constantly shifting, and doesn't move in a straight line. The hockey stick has been debunked and the various literature now suggests that the suggestion that oceans will rise 20 feet or so was scaremongering. And when it comes to alternative energies that might be used to bypass the problems supposedly caused by CO2, it often the environmentalists who are the biggest obtacles. Like for example with nuclear power.

Why are you so antagonistic to innovation, jr5656566666655? And why do you hate windmills more than you hate the toxic waste from nuclear power that will take tens of thousands of years to decay? And why does the idea of complexity or incomplete knowledge make you more interested in destroying complex systems that we don't completely understand (but rely on nonetheless) than in doing what we know will help preserve them?

Questions, questions.

Oh. BTW, it's not an environmentalist's job to worry about costs. Just like it's not the job of someone who's in love with the idea of money to worry about... well, anything not involving money.

I'm sure it's pretty safe to assume that most people who feel strongly about environmental issues (i.e. "environmentalists") know more about this sort of thing than you do, jr666666666666666665555555556565655556565.

montana wrote:Why are you so antagonistic to innovation, jr5656566666655? And why do you hate windmills more than you hate the toxic waste from nuclear power that will take tens of thousands of years to decay?Who says I'm antagonistic to innovation or that I hate windmills? I don't think they are particularly efficient in providing power so will not actually provide the requisite energy, and since nuclear is the cleanest energy when it comes to CO2 emissions I would think you would be on board, considering its YOU who are suggesting that if we dont do everything we can people will DIE and cease to exist as we know it. And by the way, did you not know that the french use nuclear power for the majority of their energy needs and are not in fact having chernobyls left and right? It's YOU who is saying CO2 is the cause of warming, so I'm merely suggesting that we use the one energy source that's cleanest if in fact CO2 is the issue. I'm just as open to fossil fuels provided they are cheap, relatively clean and give us our requisite energy needs and dont' bankrupt people who's civilizations require cheap energy to function. "And why does the idea of complexity or incomplete knowledge make you more interested in destroying complex systems that we don't completely understand ....Because you do'nt have complete knowledge of the systems that control climate or weather, not even close, yet you imply that in fact you do, and that in fact your knowledge is such so as to predict exactly what will happen in 100 years vis a vis the climate. In other words, when it comes to how you deal with climate change you pretend to the world that there is perfect knowledge, and that your computer models are perfect instruments of precise measurement,when frankly you guys couldn't predict what's going to happen next month vis a vis the weather. Further you DON'T know what will preserve these systems. Which is why noone can actually meet the requirements put forth by the various frameworks that are supposed to control our carbon usage. The things you suggest to preserve the system are so onerous and unrealistic that to implement them would bankrupt nations. Enviros ares creeching about the end of the world and yet are also bananas (build absolutely nothing any near anything) so that nothing can be implemented to actually address the so called problems.

"Oh. BTW, it's not an environmentalist's job to worry about costs...." Well perhaps that should be something that environmentalists should weigh into their calculations because it seems like their suggestions are bereft of actual real world considerations. For example, we should go solar. Ok, how expensive will that be. how long will it take to implement? what are the ramifications for doing so to people who now have to pay for these "innovations"? You might say you don't need to worry about the costs, but how presumptuous is that of you? How do you know people will be able to bear the costs and do you even care? No! It's one thing to say you care about the environment therefore we should listen to environmentalists but if the cost is an arm and a leg and ten gazilllion dollars and your first born son is that worth it for a neglibible benefit? Why should we listen to enviros about programs that will cost when they don't take cost into account? And how do we know that we couldn't achieve the same results for a lower cost doing something else? So therefore costs HAVE to be a factor. And anything enviros suggest as a solution will cost time and money. If they can't even fathom the idea of costs, why should we listen to them?

Beau wrote:"DBQ, I'm guessing you're someone who hasn't traveled much beyond your own environment which accounts for your spectacularly caviler perspective. The inhabitants of the Republic of Kiribati, would have likely suggest you come and visit their rapidly disappearing nation as the waters of the Pacific Ocean continue to rise. Too bad they don't have mountains to plant their crops at a higher altitude."

Clearly a higher temperature will be beneficial to some areas and harmful to others. But why does that matter? If you live in a flood plain and it floods what is the answer to that? If water is rising and you can see it happening and you have decades to plan for changes to the climate then why is it more reasonable to assume that somehow you can get the water levels to lower (well, of course Barack Obama will lower the water levels as promised, but I'm talking about when we have to deal with issues and a deity is not involved - lets not look for the divine intervention just yet) as opposed to adapting to changing conditions? Maybe Kiribati has to uproot itself and find more hospitable climes to live in, or maybe Kiribati can build levees that will protect itself from the rising water. It's not as if Kiribati is sitting their minding it's own business and all of a sudden a typhoon comes out of nowhere due to global warming. What do you suggest people living next to volcanoes do? Turn off the lava? Spend a gazillion dollars trying to eradicate sulfur? We don't have the ability to stop nature from running her course.